OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 05:20:41 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Different Readings in Luke 1:5  (Read 1069 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Theophilos78
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« on: September 05, 2011, 03:13:02 AM »

While doing a research on the Greek Majority text (known as the Byzantine text), I realized that the definite article preceding the word "Basileos" in Luke 1:5 was dropped/omitted in the Alexandrian text.

Ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου τοῦ βασιλέως τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἱερεύς τις ὀνόματι Ζαχαρίας ἐξ ἐφημερίας Ἀβιά, καὶ γυνὴ αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν θυγατέρων Ἀαρών, καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς Ἐλισάβετ.

Ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου βασιλέως τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἱερεύς τις ὀνόματι Ζαχαρίας ἐξ ἐφημερίας Ἀβιά, καὶ γυνὴ αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν θυγατέρων Ἀαρών, καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς Ἐλισάβετ.

People who are not familiar with the Greek alphabet can see the difference in Latin letters on this website: http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B42C001.htm

I wonder what caused this minor variance. Why does the definite article not occur in the Alexandrian text? Would its omission cause a difference in the meaning of the verse or constitute a grammatical mistake? Why is it preserved in the Byzantine majority text? Is the reason related to stylistics?

Thanks from now for your answers and help.

Peace,
Theophilos
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Theophilos78
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2011, 03:18:40 AM »

*BUMP*  Roll Eyes
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2011, 07:00:43 PM »

I wonder what caused this minor variance.

It's almost certainly a simple scribal error. Scribe reads "ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου τοῦ βασιλέως", writes "ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου βασιλέως " without realizing he made an error. (or vice versa, he reads 'ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου βασιλέως and inadvertently adds a τοῦ while he's at it). Later scribes only have access to the manuscript with the error and simply copy it as is.

That's the source of well over 95% of the differences between the various textual traditions.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2011, 07:23:26 PM »

I'm curious why you bring up that error of all the scriptural variations? I'm by no means up on my Koine, but it seems to me the only difference between the two lines is one has better grammar, on par with saying "I bought a dog" vs. "I bought dog".
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2011, 07:33:04 PM »

While doing a research on the Greek Majority text (known as the Byzantine text), I realized that the definite article preceding the word "Basileos" in Luke 1:5 was dropped/omitted in the Alexandrian text.

Ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου τοῦ βασιλέως τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἱερεύς τις ὀνόματι Ζαχαρίας ἐξ ἐφημερίας Ἀβιά, καὶ γυνὴ αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν θυγατέρων Ἀαρών, καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς Ἐλισάβετ.

Ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου βασιλέως τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἱερεύς τις ὀνόματι Ζαχαρίας ἐξ ἐφημερίας Ἀβιά, καὶ γυνὴ αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν θυγατέρων Ἀαρών, καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς Ἐλισάβετ.

People who are not familiar with the Greek alphabet can see the difference in Latin letters on this website: http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B42C001.htm

I wonder what caused this minor variance. Why does the definite article not occur in the Alexandrian text? Would its omission cause a difference in the meaning of the verse or constitute a grammatical mistake? Why is it preserved in the Byzantine majority text? Is the reason related to stylistics?

Thanks from now for your answers and help.

Peace,
Theophilos
the usage of the definite article had not completely solidified in Koine Greek as it would later (and in Modern Greek).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Theophilos78
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2011, 03:02:37 AM »

Thank u all for your interest and help.   angel

As I guessed, it is down to stylistics again. The Greek majority text has better grammar with regard to the use of the definite article. I see that in a similar case (Luke 3:1) all versions attach a definite article to the phrase "hrwdou filippou de tou adelfou".


Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Theophilos78
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2011, 03:08:39 AM »

I'm curious why you bring up that error of all the scriptural variations? I'm by no means up on my Koine, but it seems to me the only difference between the two lines is one has better grammar, on par with saying "I bought a dog" vs. "I bought dog".

Well, it is actually a long story, but I shall try to summarize it.

I am an author contributing to a website defending Christian faith against Islam. I wanted to write a rebuttal to an Islamic academician who dedicated a website to the so-called numerical/mathematical miracles of the Qur'an. In order to show him how easy it was to make use of numerical coincidences and present them as miracles, I tried to invent similar "miracles" from the Gospels. While checking the Greek New Testament used by goarch.org, I discovered interesting numerical connections related to the number of words in the Gospel of Luke. However, the omission of the definite article in Luke 1:5 destroys my numerical "miracle". I definitely need that article so as to make Zechariah the 55th word in that chapter.  Grin
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2011, 08:09:53 AM »

One of the "miracles" of the Quran requires misspelling the name of the city of Mecca. This is a "wrong" spelling and an "imperfection" in a supposedly "perfect" book. They need the error to keep the miracle, and they would lose the miracle if they were to correct the error.

To quote Fr Hopko, "we have a Bible, not a Quran". Trying to use the Bible as a Quran (whether on purpose or not) has lead some Protestant groups to strictly hold Bible inerrancy (because God's Word can't be wrong) to the point of inventing nonsense heretical doctrines for the purpose of supporting their claims. I've seen this range everywhere from the pre-existence of the soul to claims that Christ did not receive His Flesh and human nature from His Mother.

The Quran is nothing more than a demonic imitation of what is God-inspired. There just might be some "miracles" in the Quran, but demons can do all kinds of miracles in order to give the appearance of what is holy. I don't base my relation to God based on how well it squares with human scientific understanding, whether it be how bones or formed in a fetus, the exact shape of the earth, or a scientific explanation of "how" God created all that exists and brought into being. Faith is to bring us close to God, not teach us science.

Sorry for the rant, I hope you find a way to make whatever he claims to be "important" to be not so important when it comes to what really matters.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Theophilos78
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2011, 09:00:56 AM »

Thanks for your response.

One of the "miracles" of the Quran requires misspelling the name of the city of Mecca. This is a "wrong" spelling and an "imperfection" in a supposedly "perfect" book. They need the error to keep the miracle, and they would lose the miracle if they were to correct the error.

I was not aware of this. What kind of a spelling mistake is it? Mecca written as Becca? Is this what you mean?

To quote Fr Hopko, "we have a Bible, not a Quran". Trying to use the Bible as a Quran (whether on purpose or not) has lead some Protestant groups to strictly hold Bible inerrancy (because God's Word can't be wrong) to the point of inventing nonsense heretical doctrines for the purpose of supporting their claims. I've seen this range everywhere from the pre-existence of the soul to claims that Christ did not receive His Flesh and human nature from His Mother.

Heretics can always find an easy way of working out their own destruction.

The Quran is nothing more than a demonic imitation of what is God-inspired. There just might be some "miracles" in the Quran, but demons can do all kinds of miracles in order to give the appearance of what is holy. I don't base my relation to God based on how well it squares with human scientific understanding, whether it be how bones or formed in a fetus, the exact shape of the earth, or a scientific explanation of "how" God created all that exists and brought into being. Faith is to bring us close to God, not teach us science.

I agree with most of the things you stated here. However, there is not even a demonic miracle in the Qur'an.

Sorry for the rant, I hope you find a way to make whatever he claims to be "important" to be not so important when it comes to what really matters.

I hope I shall do that soon.
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2011, 09:06:18 AM »

I was not aware of this. What kind of a spelling mistake is it? Mecca written as Becca? Is this what you mean?

That is the one I was referring to.

Quote
I agree with most of the things you stated here. However, there is not even a demonic miracle in the Qur'an.

I was referring to the "miracle" of the number thing that is used as "proof" of divine authorship. Whether or not it is a real miracle doesn't really matter because even if it is, that doesn't mean it's from God. Just a thought.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Theophilos78
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #10 on: September 08, 2011, 09:34:36 AM »


That is the one I was referring to.

The author of the Qur'an probably made that spelling mistake on purpose in order to conform Mecca to the Hebrew Becca.  Grin

I was referring to the "miracle" of the number thing that is used as "proof" of divine authorship. Whether or not it is a real miracle doesn't really matter because even if it is, that doesn't mean it's from God. Just a thought.

Ah, ok. Yes, some so-called numerical miracles look impressive indeed and are difficult to refute, but they are far from perfection.
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #11 on: September 08, 2011, 02:03:04 PM »

I'm curious why you bring up that error of all the scriptural variations? I'm by no means up on my Koine, but it seems to me the only difference between the two lines is one has better grammar, on par with saying "I bought a dog" vs. "I bought dog".

Well, it is actually a long story, but I shall try to summarize it.

I am an author contributing to a website defending Christian faith against Islam. I wanted to write a rebuttal to an Islamic academician who dedicated a website to the so-called numerical/mathematical miracles of the Qur'an. In order to show him how easy it was to make use of numerical coincidences and present them as miracles, I tried to invent similar "miracles" from the Gospels. While checking the Greek New Testament used by goarch.org, I discovered interesting numerical connections related to the number of words in the Gospel of Luke. However, the omission of the definite article in Luke 1:5 destroys my numerical "miracle". I definitely need that article so as to make Zechariah the 55th word in that chapter.  Grin
Ahh, that makes sense.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.068 seconds with 38 queries.